In re A.B.
2017 Ohio 4344
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (T.H.) is the biological mother of A.B. and C.B.; father (C.B.) was awarded legal custody by the juvenile court.
- LCCS filed dependency/neglect complaints in April 2015; magistrate issued adjudicatory (June 19, 2015) and dispositional (June 29, 2015) decisions that lacked the conspicuous Juv.R. 40(D) notice on the magistrate decisions.
- The juvenile judge entered adoption/judgment entries adopting the magistrate decisions but initially labeled some entries as interim 28‑day orders and made a series of corrections and vacaturs between Sept. and Oct. 2015.
- Mother filed late objections (July 20, 2015) and sought leave to file them instanter; the juvenile court ultimately denied leave and also entered independent adjudication and disposition on February 4, 2016 (first final, appealable order).
- Subsequent orders: protective supervision was terminated (Feb. 12, 2016); A.B. reached majority (Oct. 19, 2016); Mother did not appeal the final disposition as to C.B.
- The Ninth District dismissed Mother’s appeal as moot because A.B. had turned 18 (terminating juvenile court jurisdiction over her) and the final disposition as to C.B. remained unchallenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying Mother leave to file objections instanter | Mother: denial was an abuse; she should be allowed to file late objections to challenge disposition | LCCS/Juvenile Ct.: objections were untimely and Mother failed to show excusable neglect; procedural requirements not met | Court did not reach the merits — appeal dismissed as moot |
| Whether the appeal presents a justiciable controversy given subsequent events (child aging out; termination of protective supervision) | Mother: seeks review of denial of leave and underlying disposition | Appellee/Court: A.B. attained majority and C.B.’s final disposition remains unchallenged, so no effective relief is possible | Court held appeal moot and dismissed it |
Key Cases Cited
- Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (mootness doctrine; courts should not decide cases that cannot afford effective relief)
- Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (federal statement of mootness principles quoted for the proposition that courts avoid issuing opinions on moot questions)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (dependency/neglect jurisdictional principle: parties have one appeal opportunity after adjudication and initial disposition)